Peer Review Policy
The International Journal of Medical Anesthesiology is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous peer review process. The journal adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to ensure integrity, fairness, and transparency in the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
Double-Blind Peer Review Process
The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process. This approach, endorsed by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), minimises bias and ensures that manuscripts are assessed solely on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the field of anesthesiology.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes preliminary screening by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor. This initial assessment evaluates whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, adheres to the submission guidelines, and meets the minimum standards of scientific quality and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are prepared for peer review. All author-identifying information, including names, affiliations, and acknowledgements, is removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers to preserve anonymity.
Reviewer Selection and Evaluation
Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions. The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to ensure that reviewers conduct evaluations with objectivity, confidentiality, and constructiveness.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific accuracy, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, originality of contribution, and adherence to ethical standards in research. They provide detailed comments and recommendations to guide the editorial decision.
Confidentiality
All aspects of the peer review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript or their evaluation to third parties. Similarly, all communications between the editorial office and reviewers remain confidential. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and reviewer reports are anonymised before being shared with authors.
Editorial Decision
The final decision on manuscript acceptance rests with the Editorial Board, which considers the reviewers' recommendations alongside its own assessment. In accordance with ICMJE guidelines, editorial decisions are based exclusively on the manuscript's scientific validity, originality, and significance, without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or ability to pay publication charges.
Authors receive a decision letter that includes the anonymised reviewer reports and a summary of the editorial assessment. Possible outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors whose manuscripts require revision are provided with clear guidance on the changes expected.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments and editorial recommendations thoroughly. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing justification where the authors disagree with the reviewer's suggestion. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed by the Handling Editor, depending on the extent of the revisions required.
Final acceptance is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of all requested revisions. Manuscripts that fail to address the reviewers' concerns adequately may be rejected or require additional rounds of revision.
Appeals
Authors who believe their manuscript has been incorrectly rejected may submit an appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the decision and must include a detailed explanation of why the authors believe the decision was erroneous. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal in accordance with COPE guidelines on handling appeals and may seek additional opinions before making a final determination. The decision on the appeal is final.
